Hung parliament debate in Cambridge

Stuart Weir
30 April 2010

The surge of interest among young people at this election is one of the most heartening aspects of the current political mood.  For that we must acknowledge that Nick Clegg’s performance in the leaders’ debates – and the debates themselves - have clearly made a difference.

This week I chaired a very lively students’ debate at Fitzwilliam College in Cambridge. A surprisingly large crowd came along to listen to opposing speakers debate the proposition that a hung parliament would be a good thing.  Those for the motion comfortably saw off arguments that a hung parliament would lead to economic chaos and instability and that our politics are not suited to coalition or minority government.

What was striking however was that the proponents for the motion regarded a hung parliament as the prelude to the introduction of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and a new way of doing politics – so much so that one of their opponents argued that the debate was not about electoral reform, but a hung parliament.  There seemed to me to be a general expectation that our politics could change for the better.

But what about power? One of the few women who participated asked* a very good question.  Clegg has broken through very forcibly to demonstrate just how unrepresentative and damaging the current electoral system is.  But how does he and his party actually achieve ‘something different’ when that same system keeps the two major parties alternatively in power and robs his party of the seats in Parliament that are their due? Cameron is clearly unmoved by democratic principle; Brown offers a possible deal tailored to protect Labour’s access to power. 

Clegg dare not enter into coalition with either of them to try and gain leverage for reform – Mervyn King’s prophetic words are no doubt ringing in his ears! – and anyway the Lib Dems have profound differences with both rival parties. Unless they produce an utterly remarkable breakthrough the Lib Dems are condemned to oppose a minority government or to give negotiated support to one or other of the rival parties – both dodgy and frustrating processes during which their political momentum risks being extinguished by politics as usual. And young people’s expectations too? 

* The six debaters for and against the motion were all men; and though women made up about half the audience, I had to intervene to persuade them to join the open discussion.

US election: what's going on in Trump's must-win states?

Our editor-in-chief, Mary Fitzgerald, is on the ground in key US battleground states – follow her on Twitter @maryftz for live updates.

There's never been more at stake. But the pandemic has kept many foreign journalists away. Hundreds of international observers who normally oversee US elections aren't there.

Can we trust the polls? What's the blanket media coverage not telling us? Hear Mary describe what she's seeing and hearing across the country, from regular citizens to social justice activists to right-wing militias arming themselves for election day.

Plus: get the inside scoop openDemocracy's big 'follow-the-money' investigation – breaking soon – which lifts the lid on how Trump-linked groups are going global with their culture wars.

Join us for a free live discussion on Thursday 29 October, 5pm UK time/1pm EDT.

Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.


We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData